I agree that there is no audible difference with these two players, and the features, like memory play, bypass core audio and sample rate switching are similar. For me, Audirvana gets the nod because I can use an AU plugin with it, namely a graphic EQ.

I am considering buying one of these products to improve my music listening experience, and I hope I can get some help here. I typically play my music from i-tunes on my Macbook pro, through apple TV via airplay... The apple tv is hooked up to my main Ht/ 2-.1stereo rig via an Emotiva DAC (DC-1)

(in parenthesis, I have a synology NAS that I shall soon set up to store music and video files. I also have a Mac mini serving as an htpc in my Bedroom rig, so it would be nice to have all the music files stored in one place on the home network so that I can play them on either either rig, as well as listen to them on my Macbook pro with headphones, if I choose to. Also only a tiny fraction of my music files exist in high-res format--mostly ALAC. After discovering recently that I have been shooting myself in the foot ripping my CDs to i-tunes in mp3 format, I have decided to re-rip my entire collection in lossless ALAC/FLAC for my home network, and this is also one of the reasons why I need one audio playing application to help me optimize my music. So now back to my questions.)

Will Audirvana plus fulfill all my needs? Specifically speaking: when I purchase it, can I load and use it on both my Macbook pro, and my Mac Mini, or would I have to buy two licenses in order for it to serve on both machines? Does it integrate well with ipod/ipad/iphone functionalities? Also does it optimize music for headphones in the same way as Fidelia does, according to one posting earlier in this thread? (I have a couple of great headphone amps that I use with my two rigs, so this question applies to using the headphone with my MacBook pro alone, on the fly)

Is there any advantage in owning two of these applications at the same time (e.g. Audirvana plus and Bitperfect, or Audirvana plus and Fidelia pro), or, put in another way, can Audirvana plus be adequate as a one stop solution, doing everything the other two can do?

Any helpful thoughts would be welcome. I was actually on the verge of pulling the trigger tonight, first on Bitperfect, and later, on audirvana plus, but I thought I should do a little research first in order to avoid paying for redundant duplicate services, should I end up finding one of the applications I buy inadequate for some reason. Thanks.

I recommend Bitperfect mainly for its value. Either way, any of the software offerings will do much of the same (which is bypass core audio). The quality of the coding is harder to determine. Next thing to look at is the feature set of each software and compare it to what you want.

I've recently begun using BitPerfect as I still want to use iTunes as my music center (yes I buy music through the iTunes store too). I do, however, have a fairly large ALAC collection and am starting to get into higher sample rate music. I like how BitPerfect changes sample rates on the song depending on what's playing (the main reason I bought it). I sometimes find it a bit challenging to get working if I am switching DACs though. Integer mode is great as well.

I downloaded Audirvana and played with it for the duration of the trial period. It is a great player and a perfect replacement for iTunes, but given the price for what I personally would use it for, I just couldn't get into it

To me, the SQ gains you get from running good parametric EQ are huge and 1000 times more than any player app can offer on its own. So if a player can't support 64-bit Audio Units or VST plugins, it's a deal breaker for me.

I don't want to run iTunes at all, so that eliminates some of the options like Bitperfect.

I tried them all and settled on Audirvana, although it's also not perfect. I like the direct DAC hogging mode to ensure your digital source is untainted, and the fact that it plays every file format, and of course it supports Audio Units plugins. So from a SQ point of view, it ticks all the boxes. It also uses the DAC's own volume control when possible, and adds a lot more volume steps, which I like. The interface is plain and there are some small bugs/annoyances but nothing critical. The database seems to update instantly to new additions/deletions, which I find quite important. You shouldn't ever have to sync new music manually. As soon as it's in your folder, Audirvana adds it to the database. Same with deletions. That's a big bonus, imo.

JRiver interface was so poor (on the Mac, at least) that I skipped that option but it would probably be my second choice as it does seem capable.

Fidelia's interface is poor and doesn't allow AU plugins.

I can't remember why I rejected Amarra but I did try it.

Vox: It lost my AU plugins every time I restarted. It didn't find my SACD ISOs, DSF or WV files. It also doesn't seem to control the DAC directly the way Audirvana does. 3 deal breakers. I also didn't like the interface.

I tried all three, and ended up liking Audirvana plus the best. Fidelia with the crossfeed hdx plugin was interesting but not worth the tweaking per song. Audirvana just worked well as a standalone player. Bitperfect with itunes worked but was overly bright on my setup.

I've been using Audirvana for over a year, and the SQ is great. I have a MBP that I've used for serving up music, DVD, iTunes movies, Hulu, etc., and I have to say that it does get annoying when Audirvana gums up the other software. I often need to quit and start up other software, change settings, and even occasionally re-start the computer (an otherwise rare occurrence for a Mac user) because it likes to take control of the computer and doesn't want to give it back. Note that I turned off the optimization options that would give it even more control, but I still have these problems.

I recently tried Fidelia. One thing I noticed is that playing around with the EQ it became noisy when pushing any frequency channel beyond about 2 dB...I never noticed this problem with Audirvana...not a big deal for me personally since the EQ is not something I often use, but it seems to work better on Audirvana than Fidelia.

Both say they use the izotope 64-bit algorithm, I think they color the sound slightly differently. Audirvana has better mid-bass resolution and upper mids. Fidelia has nicely resolved highs but maybe pushing the limits, but the bass is timid for a flat output.

Just upgraded from version 1. Wow!!!! The sound has just opened up so much. More body to the sound. Transients in the background flow beautifully. The treble is a little more controlled and the dynamics have improved too. You will hear things you just could not with version 1. I'll admit I can hear a lot more on my Hifi setup than the headphones but that may just be as I'm still waiting for my sennheiser HDVA 600 to partner my Audeze. Anyway just wanted to leave my feedback. If you have version 1 and use it with iTunes integrated mode, just gor for it NOW!!!